Controlled readability of Seveso II company safety documents,the design of a new KPI

Companies often use a substantial quantity of safety-related documents such as the front gate safety flyer, emergency evacuation instructions, work permits, safety procedures, work instructions and policy statements. In many cases the personnel magazines and message board notes also contain safety information. The authors and readers may not be in the same department, premises or cultural group. Both authors and readers are diverse groups when it comes to reading, writing and language skills. Previous research has found that Seveso II companies produce documents that are difficult for their workforce and visitors to understand. Authors do not write systematically to match the reader’s skill level. This may be due in part to the quality and effectiveness of layout guidance, expert linguistic advice and document appraisal systems. These do not in general provide the immediate support needed. Layout suggestions are of limited effectiveness, and availability and usability limits the value of expert advice and appraisal systems. So, without useful feedback, many authors cannot write sufficiently readable documents; to overcome this threshold, they need a quick document readability assessment tool. With such a tool, readability can become a controlled property of safety documents. Large companies may use hundreds or thousands of documents containing safety information. This paper presents a practical approach for the transition to, and monitoring of, controlled readability for all documents related to safety. A new Key Performance Indicator design on readability is proposed.     

Sustainable livelihoods and people’s vulnerability in the face of coastal hazards

The present study investigates into the link between people’s vulnerability in the face of coastal hazards and sustainable livelihoods. It focuses on the town of Borongan in the Philippines and draws on questionnaire-based surveys and focus group discussions. This research shows that local fishermen are often compelled to go out fishing despite pending typhoon or storm surge to sustain the daily needs of their family. Its also demonstrates that the capacity of these people to protect themselves from the threat is constrained by poor and fragile livelihoods. In the event of a crisis, the study argues that people resort to a range of adjustments on their daily life which is rooted in the strength and diversity of their livelihoods. To reduce people’s vulnerability and enhance capacities to face coastal hazards, the study fosters Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction with special emphasis to sustainable livelihoods.     

Academic publishing in disaster risk reduction: past,present, and future

Nowadays there are approximately 80 Anglophone journals that deal primarily with disaster risk reduction (DRR) and allied fields. This large array signals a sustained, if uneven, growth in DRR scholarship but also competition between the offerings of different publishers and institutions. The purpose of this article is first to summarise the development of academic publishing on DRR from its early beginnings to the present day. The paper then evaluates the current state of publishing in this field and discusses possible future trends. Next, it identifies some possible opportunities, challenges, expectations, and commitments for journal editors both within DRR and academia more broadly, including those that refer to changes in the use of terminology, the relentless increase in the number of papers submitted, the expansion and dangers of predatory journals, different peer review models, open access versus paywalls, citations and bibliography metrics, academic social networks, and copyright and distribution issues.     

Disaster studies inside out

Disaster studies is faced with a fascinating anomaly: frequently it claims to be critical and innovative, as suggested by the so‐called vulnerability paradigm that emerged more than 40 years ago, yet often it is perpetuating some of the core and problematic tenets of the hazard paradigm that we were asked to challenge initially. This paper interrogates why such an anomaly persists. In so doing, it employs Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony to unpack why disaster studies is still dominated by Western epistemologies and scholars that perpetuate an orientalist view of disasters. Ultimately, it suggests a research agenda for the 40 years to come, which builds on the importance of local researchers analysing local disasters using local epistemologies, especially in the non‐Western world. Such subaltern disaster studies are to be fuelled by increasing consciousness of the need to resist the hegemony of Western scholarship and to relocate disaster studies within the realm of its original political agenda.